For video, going super shallow is cool, but so easily overdone, and has become a 'special effect' with DSLR video these days that's often used too much, with no regards to keeping anything particularly in focus to show off bokeh.I like shallow, but for subject separation or for a nice dreamy feel when needed, but not for an excuse for poor composition, you can't just keep a single point in focus and ignore how the overall image is composed.If you need 1.4 for the light, then that's certainly great if IS is part of the package too, but one is better off with a fast wide angle for lowlight video anyways

For video, going super shallow is cool, but so easily overdone, and has become a 'special effect' with DSLR video these days that's often used too much, with no regards to keeping anything particularly in focus to show off bokeh.I like shallow, but for subject separation or for a nice dreamy feel when needed, but not for an excuse for poor composition, you can't just keep a single point in focus and ignore how the overall image is composed.If you need 1.4 for the light, then that's certainly great if IS is part of the package too, but one is better off with a fast wide angle for lowlight video anyways

I think what's amateurish is when you use something you don't know how to use. Having a capability of an aperture of 1.4 certainly isn't amateurish. It's how you use it. Your explanation didn't prove 1.4 as amateurish.

For video, going super shallow is cool, but so easily overdone, and has become a 'special effect' with DSLR video these days that's often used too much, with no regards to keeping anything particularly in focus to show off bokeh.I like shallow, but for subject separation or for a nice dreamy feel when needed, but not for an excuse for poor composition, you can't just keep a single point in focus and ignore how the overall image is composed.If you need 1.4 for the light, then that's certainly great if IS is part of the package too, but one is better off with a fast wide angle for lowlight video anyways

I fail to see how one would be better off with a fast wide angle. They are two completely different lenses. As a wedding photographer, I need fast everything... fast wides, fast portrait, and fast telephoto. Not sure how one replaces the other.

If you don't like IS, then turn it off and bring your monopod ! And it is not just for video, you have a much smaller apertures without changing iso's..

And all the cool effects with longer speeds for street photo for example, because I don't like using a tripod, especially when it's almost not need for it. Panning with a fast 50 would be really cool. You would have loads and loads of new options, if you weren't busy thinking that you must hate it because increased the price of a product that's hugely improved... are we also mad that a 2012 car is more expensive and have tracktion control than a 1993 of the same car?

For video, going super shallow is cool, but so easily overdone, and has become a 'special effect' with DSLR video these days that's often used too much, with no regards to keeping anything particularly in focus to show off bokeh.I like shallow, but for subject separation or for a nice dreamy feel when needed, but not for an excuse for poor composition, you can't just keep a single point in focus and ignore how the overall image is composed.If you need 1.4 for the light, then that's certainly great if IS is part of the package too, but one is better off with a fast wide angle for lowlight video anyways

I watch a lot of TV shows that have a documentary flavor. They rarely, maybe never, use selective focus. If anything, they go to the other extreme, with everything in sharp focus.

Well its about time! I've been yearning for an acceptable 50mm for a long time. If the L didn't have the back focus problem I'd go that route. F 1.4 with or without IS and I'm likely in. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 50 1.4 II with ring USM and round aperture and a new 50 2.8 IS member. And its not early to update the 50L!

This lens has the potential to be a killer lens:- reasonable high max aperture- IS to extend shooting ability in sparse light- chance to get wider DOF by using the IS and a smaller aperture- chance to deliver much higher contrast @f/1.4 as the current version by use of special glasses or/and aspherical lens(es)

Hopefully it gets a good minimum focus distance of about 30mm 30cm (is sufficient) - very helpful to stretch its applications as universal standard lens (on FF) or light telephoto (on APS-C).

If it costs 800€/$ and delivers perfect qualitiy (contrast, flare resistance, texture fidelity, bokeh, low distortions & vignetting) it will be a very well priced lens.

Looking at the other new primes, under $800 is a pipe dream.. If it stays at 1.4 and has IS, i'd suspect it will be just shy of $900. If its a 1.8 or a 2.0, then it may be under $800. But not if its as fast as 1.4

Keep in mind that the 28/2.8 IS was introduced at $800 and is $629 at the moment. That's a big price drop in a short time.

This (50mm f1.4 IS) would be the most hand-holdable lens ever (EV 0 @ ISO 640), which puts it slightly ahead of the 35mm f2 IS (ISO 1000) and 24mm f2.8 IS (ISO 1250). Compared to the venerable 200mm f2 (ISO 5000) or 70-200mm f2.8 IS II (ISO 4000-10000) that is an impressive feat. All these estimates go by the 1/FL rule (minus 4 stop of stabilization) and shot wide open and EV 0 is defined as proper exposure of subject in ISO 100 | f/1 | 1 sec.

I have been DREAMING about this lens since I got my first DSLR. 50mm is my favorite focal length; I shoot primarily landscape and adventure (mountaineering) photography. I’m not sure why everyone thinks you need a wide-angle to shoot things in the great outdoors, I shoot with a 50 f/1.4 about 90% of the time, everyone has their own style.

Some of my most iconic images are shot in pre-dawn light; we often start climbing hours before the sun comes up. At high altitude before sunrise, the light is gorgeous, changing quickly, and there is not much of it. There is no time to setup a tripod. I end up having to shoot at f/1.4 with 12k-25.6k ISO’s to get a non-blurred image, and by that point I consider the images pretty much unusable for professional applications. Having FOUR STOPS of IS would be HUGE for me, and allow me to get my ISO’s back down to manageable levels. This would also allow me to shoot basic star shots…hand-held!

This lens is truly a dream-come-true, and I will pre-order it as soon as it becomes available. Something I have NEVER done with a lens before.

I have been disgustingly disappointed with Canon bodies lately (as have most of you here) but I am very pleased with the way they’ve been handling lenses: fast primes with IS and small/light sizes. This is PERFECT for me, especially as I start to branch out more into videography.

Now if only they’d make a 24mm f/1.4 with IS…

So, I see that you 'HATE" Canon camera bodies! (I just couldn't resist pointing that out ).

I love my Canon 5DIII. It does a LOT, well. I just wish I had cashed in on the $2499 "give-away"! Although when I got mine for $3399 I was able to sell my 5DII at $2100 so that kind of all equals out the cash disparity for me if I had done the same thing now I would get nothing near that for my 5DII. So...its all good.

If the rumor is true, and if it's under $1k (meaning they don't REALLY put the screws to us on pricing) then it's going to be a great lens. And 5 years from now, when it's selling at $500, it'll STILL be a great lens.

Buuuuut we're complaining about price already. If there were no IS, we'd complain about that.

You know it doesn't come with free cookies, are we going to whine about that next? Where's the napkin with the cookies?

This lens has been a workhorse, although it can be finnicky and a bit fragile at times. All they need to do is make that inner barrel out of something besides plastic and this will be a fantastic lens.

Logged

In landscape photography, when you shoot is more important than where.

This lens has been a workhorse, although it can be finnicky and a bit fragile at times. All they need to do is make that inner barrel out of something besides plastic and this will be a fantastic lens.

What about the cheap micro-USM? And mediocre performance wide open? It's 2012, Canon can do much better than this. A lens designed in 1993 was likely not computer generated. Check out my post on page 3 comparing the new primes (24mm and 28mm IS) to the older primes and the current L lenses. Don't tell me that kind of performance out of a <$900 lens is not desirable.